Jump to content

Vanir Ausf B

Members
  • Posts

    9,567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Vanir Ausf B

  1. Yes, I too doubt you will get the exact formulas. Besides that, they do not respond well to "threats" I think it's enough to know that if you want to control a VL you need to get as many forces as you can as close as you can. If you are unsure whether the game will give you control of it or not, you probably don't really control it at all. My only problem with they way the games does things is that it sometimes gives control to one side or the other when neither of them really controls it. [ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ] [ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
  2. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: so does it have a faster velocity? a faster velocity would make it more accurate at longer ranges.<hr></blockquote> If you look at unit stats in the game, you will see that CM lists the bazooka as having a muzzel velocity of 83m/s, the shreck 100m/s. The shreck round is also larger and heavier. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Redwolf: And maybe BTS even models that the second shot is more accurate, like they do for guns.<hr></blockquote> They do.
  3. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian: I cannot see how this can be provided by third parties, when it would require a completely new layer for the vehicle but I admit I could be wrong.<hr></blockquote> A third party could do it, but BTS could make it look better because they could modify the basic model. If a 3rd party modified the textures the wire would look flat instead of sticking out from the tank. Same thing with sandbags, or almost any other field mod you can think of. Of course, then you start running into polygon budgets. The point is that doing this for all the field mods for all the vehicles in the game would require an enormous amount of time. Unless it can be shown that these things actually worked, I can't see how it's worth it. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>And why would that be. Spit it out Vanir. If you want to make an accusation, be man enough to put it out in the open.<hr></blockquote> Well, since I have 'spit it out' into the open for you in previous threads I'm not sure why you're playing ignorant here; but, I was, of course, refering to your thinly concealed and rather obvious distaste for the US in general and the US military in particular. Is that "man enough" for you? (snicker) <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>*SIGH* always carrying my comments to the extreme, hey, Vanir. Yet, we have the Sturmtiger, Jagdtiger, Wirbelwind, Ostwind, etc., either already in the game or promised. Now you want "Panther F, Maus, Goliath, or round-the-corner-firing SMG's also included." Production numbers please.<hr></blockquote> I don't know why you were addressing me here, as I did not write the words you were replying to. However, as I am already commenting on them ,let me say that I have no clue where you got the idea that Spook actually wanted those vehicles in the game. If you reread what he wrote (or read it for the first time, as the case may be) you will see he said nothing of the sort, nor did he even imply it. [ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
  4. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Diceman: I'm almost certain its alleged anti heat round properties are not modeled.<hr></blockquote> No, it's modeled. My testing has shown the schurzen on the Mk IVH decrease the chance of a bazooka hit penetrating by about 30%. Even the schurzen on the Panther A has a very small effect. [ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
  5. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian: SIGH whose talking about "bedsprings"? I'm not.<hr></blockquote> As you seem to be fond of word games, I will point out to you that I said "begsprings or whatever". Whatever meaning anything you want, including wire. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>They managed in CMBO to make Schutzen/non-Schutzen available for the Germans. I see no reason why they couldn't make the same available for CMXX.<hr></blockquote> German schurzen were official vehicle features that were at least somewhat effective. There has been no evidence presented that these field modifications had any measurable effect. Therefore what you are asking for is simply a graphics mod. This is more appropriately done by a 3rd party mod maker. If BTS had to make seperate textures for every field modification for every vehicle they would never get anything done. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Never having played US (nor interested in doing so)<hr></blockquote> Gee, I wonder why that would be... [ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
  6. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg: However, I prefer computer choose troop games (CCG) as compared to human choose troops games (HCG) because CCGs seem to have a more realistic feel. Yes, I know that many will say that HCGs are more realisitic. I respectfully disagree.<hr></blockquote> Computer pick is more realistic for the reasons you note. It is less realistic in that you tend to get a hodge-podge of different unit types mixed together. This doesn't bother some people. That's fine. As you say, everyone has their own preferences and opinions. My main problem with computer pick is that you can sometimes end up with some rather unbalanced forces, such as getting an army of halftracks while your opponent gets a Hetzer, a Panther and 2 Stugs. This may be realistic in a way, but it isn't very fun IMO. There is also the issue of the map peek cheat that is much worse for computer pick games. But to each their own. I'm not telling anyone how to play their games. All that I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with picking homogenous forces, regardless of unit type. For example, I have never used a KT in a game, but if I did get a wild hair up my ass for one game I would likely buy nothing but KTs as my armored force in that game. That would be more realisic than buying a KT, a JPz IV/70, a Hetzer, a MK IV and a Wespe. And I would be annoyed if my opponent gave me a hard time about it especially if he were losing. Now, if I were buying KTs in every game I played, or in even half of them, that would be a problem, but that is a separate issue. I understand that if you play someone for the first time and they have KTs or FJ it is natural to assume they must use them all the time, even though there is no way to know that (unless you ask them). The new rarity system in CM2 should go a long way toward changing that. Until then I will continue my policy of never bitching about what my opponent buys unless it violates some pre-game agreement. I go into every game I play more-or-less assuming my opponent will buy some cherry-picked force. I have never had much trouble beating these types of forces, so I don't get too excited when I see them, nor do I feel too guilty on the rare occasions I may use one myself. In my expirience the better player (or the luckier player) will win almost every time regardless of forces picked. Maybe others have had different expiriences. In any case, have a Happy Thanksgiving! [ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
  7. In the 16 games I have played on the RD ladder (including current) I have used Gerbils twice. I have never used FJ or Sturmgruppen against another human player. I usually use SS Rifle as Germans. Does that answer your question? Gerbil Master... BTW, in neither of those 2 games were the type of infantry I chose a deciding factor. They were both fairly lopsided games. In fact, I have never played a game in which I felt the type of infantry used decided the outcome. [ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
  8. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg: Most of the trouble with human choose troops games (as opposed to computer choose troops) is the following: all paratrooper/fallshrims, all Hetzer, all Jumbo, all uber tank, all nuclear arty armies. :eek: Oh, ... I forgot the all gerbil trooper (yeah, I know, gebirgsjager) armies. <hr></blockquote> What is the problem with this? Generally speaking it is more realistic to play with homogenous armored platoons and infantry forces. Taking one of this and two of that and one of those is cherry picking. If you are going to use Gerbils there is nothing wrong with using all Gerbils, if you are going to use Hetzers there is nothing wrong with using all Hetzers. Or am I misunderstanding what you said?
  9. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian: I'd be happy to see both parts of the argument answered. If it has little physical effect, its still evident that many crews believed otherwise and visually it needs to be represented, if it was present.<hr></blockquote> The reason BTS did not use visual representations of these field modifications is that most tanks did not have them, but if they had been included in the game ALL tanks would have them i.e. if the stock Sherman textures had had sandbags on them, ALL Shermans would have been show with sandbags, which is even more unrealistic than none of them having it. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Of course, we could all fall back on the "its abstracted" thesis but if that was true, why has so much effort been expended on 3-d wireframes with bitmapped "skins" and the "modding" of those skins? If everything is to be "abstracted" then I'd suggest it would be quicker and simpler perhaps to have settled for cubes with symbols on them.<hr></blockquote> Some things were left out to cut down on polygon counts for performance reasons. You may have noticed that the AAMG on the Sherman is not shown, nor are the "Rhino" attachments, even though both are assumed to be there by the game engine. There is little point in asking BTS to start producing new artwork for CMBO. There is no chance of this happening. It is also pointless for the reason that any 3rd party mod maker could do what you are asking. In fact, there are Sherman/sandbag mods available now. If you are handy with Paintshop or something similar you could modify the existing textures yourself to add bedsprings or whatever.
  10. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155: The only copyright notice I have ever seen is on the MDMP mods. Thanks for the education. Treeburst155 out. © copyright<hr></blockquote> Crap! I think I just violated your copyright by quoting your post in full in my post. I'm broke, please don't sue. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>AndrewTF: BTW, the German company offering the CD with mods stolen from the web was doing so FOR PROFIT. I think most people were outraged because this company was trying to make profit by using and not acknowledging the hard work of people here in the CM community. It's a totally different issue, as far as I'm concerned.<hr></blockquote> Yes. The fact that they were distributing it without the authors' permission isn't why BTS got involved. They got involved because they were selling it for money.
  11. Good point. I remember BTS catching grief for not modeling US Shermans with sandbags on the front. Turns out the sandbags were mostly a psychological aid, and added little or no protection.
  12. John, thanks for the heads up. It was an excellent show, and I would have missed it had I not seen your post here. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai: I think I'll just start posting Australian TV schedules. I'm sure all the non-Australians will be fascinated with them.<hr></blockquote> As long as it is about WW2 related programs, please feel free. You may not be aware, having not been around here for long, that people have been discussing these History Channel programs on this forum periodically for a long time. They are usually American shows, but not always. This is the first time I can recall anyone being offended by one of these posts. Well, the second time, I suppose, after Iron Chef [ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
  13. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: i just want to know how others view this trend? thanks in advance for the input!<hr></blockquote> You're late to the party, Chad Check this thread out from last year: Fallschirmjager Trend What do I think? Well, I happen to also be on the RD ladder, so I see them all the time. When playing as Germans I pick them maybe half the time or a little less, and use vanilla infantry the rest of the time. Unless there is some agreement before hand, I don't have a problem with them. One thing I don't do is mix them together in the same game.
  14. The reason your M18s did not fire tungsten is because regular AP can penetrate the Tiger sometimes. And that's the problem. The way the TacAI works, if there is even a small chance regular AP will work, even if it is fairly unlikely, it will not use tungsten. This is also true of the use of HEAT rounds. Run a test with a 105mm armed Sherman against a Mk IV. The 105 HE can only penetrate frontally through the turret, but that's good enough for the TacAI, which will not use HEAT.
  15. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>What's A Good Scenario For Fair PBEM Ladder Play?<hr></blockquote> A Second Job - Vossenack Move It or Lose It Reut Canal To The Last Man 49th Recce Into the East Last Defense The Sunken Lane
  16. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wreck: Steve, the use of price alone as a means to implement rarity is not an ideal system.<hr></blockquote> I had this exact discussion with Steve in a thread a long while back. A search may turn it up. Suffice it to say I agree with your reasoning, but Steve did not. A number of rarity systems were proposed and discussed at length, including the one you are proposing here. My proposed system was a bit different than yours, but in the end BTS went with their original idea. We'll just have to see how it works out when it gets here. The saving grace may be that the whole thing is optional. [ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
  17. BTS has said that few if any CM1 vehicle mods will be compatible with CM2. The CM2 models have more polygons, so the textures wont fit right.
  18. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai: Out of a matter of interest, is windage modelled in CM? I'd expect the 95mm CS How. to be quite badly affected windage, as it was quite a low velocity weapon.<hr></blockquote> No wind in CM. I'm not sure if ballistic coefficients are modeled "under the hood", but with no specific wind modeling I doubt it. It wouldn't be a bad idea to add this to CM2. Perhaps they already have?
  19. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by moosehead: Now now, thats not true. I got one of your tanks with a zook. <hr></blockquote> Yep. I corrected myself. It was our game I was talking about. You probably remember my long range shreck hit on that M8 sitting on the road. It was not a good day for tank crews
  20. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: I don't think that applies to HEAT, neither in reality nor current CMBO modeling.<hr></blockquote> True, but then you have 2 different armor thickness values, which is cumbersome IMO. A thought just occured to me. According to a post I saw by Rexford a while back, German armor thickness was often thicker than what official spec required, sometimes by as much as 5mm. That right there may explain the KT vs. zook debate as CM seems to use official numbers. [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
  21. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: wait! when is CM II the engine re-write of the ETO going to happen? Within CM3 of after it?<hr></blockquote> Originally, it was to be done after CM3. However, in recent months BTS has been hedging on that, saying it may be after CM2. I don't think they know yet themselves.
  22. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: In the time I have been playing CM I have never lost a tank to a zook, and have only lost 1 to a shreck (this is against human opponents). I am paranoid and that keeps my tanks alive. I've also been a little lucky at times.<hr></blockquote> Minor self correction here, due to small brain fart. The tank I lost was to a zook. Mk IV at 150m. Oddly, it was in the same game I got the 185m shreck kill.
  23. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Penetration stats for 0 degree obliquity From: L. Bird & R. Livingston’s “Armor & Gunnery” UK 95mm HES….127mm<hr></blockquote> CM number: 125mm Rexford has spoken. I don't see a problem here. CM has the bazooka at 90mm at 0 degrees. Does anyone have a sourse with a different value?
×
×
  • Create New...